Changes in Motor Vehicle Law 2014 - Short List

  • Comm. v. Correia, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 780 (2013): Off-duty officer may delay issuing a citation so long as the motorist is told about the violation and the citation is delivered within a reasonable amount of time.
  • Comm. v. Celletti, 2012 WL 6621774 (Appeals Court): Forwarding a second citation in order to comply with administrative procedure is an exception to immediate service requirement.
  • Comm. v. Hackett, 2013 WL 898132 (Appeals Court): Snow obscuring license plate digits justifies a stop.
  • Comm. v. Lee, 466 Mass 1028 (2013): Enhanced penalty for driving after an OU! suspension only applies to underlying Mass.  conviction.
  • Comm. v. Renkowicz, 2013 WL 2371542 (Appeals Court): Police may arrest for operating after revocation even if the defendant never possessed a valid license, so long as his right to operate had been revoked.
  • Comm. v. Shattuck, 2013 WL 4778127 (Appeals Court): Visible lack of a proper restraint for a child justifies a vehicle stop.
  • Comm. v. Eggsware, 2012 WL _ 5640840 (Appeals Court): Sufficient evidence of operation based on report of erratic driver, a recently driven car, and the defendant’s connection to it.
  • Comm. v. Labonbard, 2013 WL 4710491 (Appeals Court): Sufficient evidence of where defendant was near his crashed truck, he said he came from  a  place that required driving on a public way, the truck was warm, and he was very intoxicated .
  • Comm. v. Galenski, 2013 WL 172521 (Appeals Court): Defendant’s details of how the crash occurred matched the physical evidence and corroborated her admission that she was driving
  • Comm. v. Lamb, 2013 WL 5762203 (Appeals Court):  Stadium parking lot provides a right of public access sufficient to constitute a “public way.”
  • Comm. v. Devine, 2013 WL 2096627 (Appeals Court): Defendant does not have to be
  • drunk to have a diminished capacity to drive.
  • Comm. v. Canty, 466 Mass. 535 (2013): Officers may offer an opinion in court about the defendant’s level of intoxication, but they may not offer an opinion that the defendant’s intoxication impaired his ability to drive.
  • Comm. v. Frazier, 2013 WL 172523 (Appeals Court): Stop justified for public safety when defendant drove with “shredded” tires; defendant’s apparent lack of knowledge that the tires were destroyed added to reasonable suspicion of .
  • Comm. v. O’Brien, 2013 WL 708877 (Appeals Court): Request to roll down window during a traffic stop is not considered a search. Pg. 10-14; 9-10 (marked lanes).
  • Comm. v. Welch, 2012 WL 6553963 (Appeals Court): Police may look for signs of injury on suspect’s body if they have probable cause to arrest for  and leaving the scene of an accident.
  • Comm. v. Smith, 2012 WL 6195593 (Appeals Court): An officer who is present during field sobriety tests may testify about what the administering officer said or did.
  • Comm. v. Brown, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 772 (2013): Once a person agrees to take an SFST and attempts it, comments about his inability to perform the test are admissible at trial.
  • Comm. v. Kulbeth, 2013 WL 3834635 (Appeals Court): Silence does not constitute a refusal to perform field sobriety tests.
  • Comm. v. Engstrom, 2013 WL 802196 (Appeals Court): Defendants are not entitled to expert testimony on field sobriety tests because jurors have the common experience and knowledge to understand.
  • Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013):  No automatic exigency permits officers to obtain blood samples from drunk drivers without a warrant.
  • Comm. v. Cruz, 2013 WL 3233462 (Appeals Court): Name and birth date, without more, is insufficient to prove that the defendant is the same person who committed the prior .
  • Comm. v. Petit, 83 Mass. App. Ct. 401 (2013): The defendant must have a valid license in order to be charged with violating an ignition interlock restriction.
  • Comm. v. Matthews, 2013 WL 673079 (Appeals Court): Defendant who exited her vehicle and was walking away when she was surrounded by pedestrians was guilty of leaving the scene
  • Robinson v. Cook, 706 F.3d 25 (2013): Probable cause and exigent circumstances justified seizing a car suspected in a hit and run without a warrant
  • Comm. v. Santiago, 2013 WL 273264 (Appeals Court): Sufficient evidence of intent to commit a misdemeanor in a vehicle.
  • Comm. v. Venuti, 2013 WL 425124 (Appeals Court): Defendant knew he did not have authority to use former girlfriend’s car based on her prior discussion with him.
  • Comm. v. Depina, 2013 WL 373595 (Appeals Court): Proof that a driver is not on the rental agreement is probable cause for use without authority.